Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Jartan-LLC/grimoire --skill code-hygienegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jartan-LLC/grimoireWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/code-hygiene)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/code-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/code-hygiene/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/code-hygiene"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/code-hygiene.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00038 | $0.01595 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00638 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00319 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
code-hygiene scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Hygiene
Don't leave -- or write -- code that lies, hides, or that git (or an existing solution) already owns. Every line is a permanent liability someone must read, test, and carry forward, so each must earn its place. This skill is language-agnostic and guides both authors and reviewers. This skill only deletes; its constructive siblings shape what survives -- code-structure (the units and their contracts) and readable-code (how a body reads). Comment truthfulness is comment-hygiene's. (Python-specific pitfalls live in pythonica:python-anti-patterns; documentation prose in docs-patterns.)
Dead code & speculative generality
Code no live path needs is dead -- delete it; don't add what isn't needed yet.
Dead / commented-out code
Rule: Delete dead, unreachable, and commented-out code. Git holds the history -- recover it with git log -G if ever needed. Never comment code out to keep it "for later"; version control is the "for later."
Test: unreachable (after return / throw / break), unused (no live caller, import, or reference), or disabled/commented "just in case" -> delete.
Orphaned abstractions / speculative generality
Rule: Don't build for a future that hasn't arrived (YAGNI). A helper, wrapper, config knob, interface, or parameter with no live consumer is dead weight -- remove it, or don't add it.
Test: zero live callers, or added only for a hypothetical future need? -> delete / don't write. Generalize when the second real use appears, not before.
Debug / scaffolding output left behind
Rule: Strip ad-hoc debug and instrumentation output -- print, console.log, debugger, breakpoint(), dbg!, var_dump -- before merge. It was scaffolding to inspect state during development, not shipped behavior.
Test: is this line an ad-hoc trace a developer added to watch state, rather than an intentional logger call? Yes -> delete.
Contrast: a real logger call (logger.*) is the sanctioned channel for output that should ship -- see logging-patterns.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 101 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 24010f46a38f
code-hygiene is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jartan-LLC/grimoire (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,595 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
design-parity-review
Prove a Compose UI pull request matches its intended design by diffing the rendered code (candidate) against a Figma / Stitch / Claude Design reference and posting a parity verdict. Use when asked to check a PR against a design, wire up a design-parity bot, set up the committed reference cache so runs make zero Figma…
babysit-pr
Resolve reviewer comments on a pull request or pasted feedback using a six-step evidence-grounded protocol. Use when asked to resolve review feedback, address reviewer comments, process PR comments, triage review feedback, apply review suggestions, handle code review feedback, decide which review comments to accept or…
compose-preview-review
Review Compose UI previews and pull requests by rendering base and head, diffing them, and checking catalog design guidelines. Use for a UI design review, a UI PR locally or from a CI agent session (@claude mention), authoring an agent-opened PR that touches UI, or triaging flaky or unstable previews…
verify-impl
Forensic audit of an implementation against its authoritative specification. Use whenever a specification document and an implementation are both in scope and the user asks any conformance question - even when not phrased explicitly: 'does this code match the spec', 'verify this implementation', 'check spec…